
In the Trump Era, Crafting a State Budget Becomes More Complicated
State officials acknowledged that drafting the final budget of Mr. Murphy's second term had proved challenging amid uncertainty in Washington, where Republicans are mulling deep cuts in spending on health care for low-income people to help pay for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts.
New Jersey estimates it could lose as much as $5.2 billion in Medicaid matching funds that help provide health coverage to roughly 700,000 residents.
'There are some draconian cuts that might be presented,' the state's treasurer, Elizabeth Maher Muoio, said.
'That is the real game changer that we all have to be aware of,' she added.
New Jersey, she noted, is not the only state grappling with such uncertainty.
Last week, the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures warned that any dip in Medicaid funding could lead to devastating results, noting that roughly 79 million Americans depend on it for health care.
'Medicaid accounts for over half of all federal funds to states and is the largest source of federal funding for state budgets, making it essential to states' ability to design and administer health care programs that meet the unique needs of their populations,' stated a letter from the conference and other organizations sent to Washington lawmakers.
The budget Mr. Murphy unveiled included $1.4 billion more than the one he approved for the current fiscal year, but $70 million less than what the state expected it would actually spend by July, after midyear adjustments.
Still, the budget blueprint, which will now be refined by the State Legislature before it is approved by July 1, required what officials described as difficult choices.
Months ago, all agencies were asked to trim spending by 5 percent and to limit new hiring.
The proposed spending plan sets aside $1 million to pay for as many as 10 additional lawyers who will focus on challenging Trump administration policies deemed harmful to New Jersey. But it also includes cuts to college affordability programs and only small increases in municipal aid. Taxes would be increased on sports betting and recreational activities like bowling and laser tag, as would fees on cigarettes, vaping items and drone purchases.
'While I sincerely hope that the situation in Washington settles down, and that we in turn have a normal, healthy budget season over the next few months, that is by no means a guarantee,' Mr. Murphy, a Democrat, told state lawmakers in a budget address in Trenton.
'There is a distinct possibility that we will, instead, need to pursue a 'break the glass' strategy,' he said. 'What that looks like, we cannot yet say. But we must acknowledge, and adapt to, this new reality.'
New Jersey this year received about $28 billion from Washington, and roughly 15 percent of the state's public work force is paid with federal funds. Officials have said there are also concerns about potential cuts in federal funding for New Jersey Transit, which raised bus and train fares by 15 percent in July and still faces a large deficit.
'If that money were to be cut, we would either have to make up the difference somehow with state dollars, or our residents would be essentially denied the services,' Ms. Muoio said.
'This is all a big question mark right now, but the numbers we're hearing are sobering,' she said.
The governor's proposed budget increases aid to schools and continues to fully fund New Jersey's pension obligations for public employees while setting aside about $6.3 billion for a rainy day surplus fund for emergencies. It also includes promised funds for Stay NJ, an initiative approved last year to cut property taxes by as much as $6,500 a year for older homeowners.
Since taking office in 2018, Governor Murphy has prioritized efforts to pad the surplus and meet the state's pension obligations, resulting in a series of improved credit score ratings. And Ms. Muoio recoiled at the suggestion that, in the face of cuts in Washington, New Jersey might scrimp on pensions to balance the budget — a tactic regularly used by prior administrations that had caused interest payments to balloon.
Had the pension payments been fully funded for the last 25 years, Mr. Murphy said costs would be about $1 billion a year. Instead, New Jersey spends $7 billion annually on its pension obligations.
'Over the past five budgets alone, we have paid, in total, a $30 billion penalty,' Mr. Murphy told lawmakers.
'That is $30 billion that should be going back into our hospitals, our schools, our public transit system,' he added. 'But instead, we are literally paying the price for decades of short-term, sloppy and selfish decision-making.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Chicago Tribune
22 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Tariffs threaten Asian beauty product boom in US
NEW YORK — When Amrita Bhasin, 24, learned that products from South Korea might be subject to a new tax when they entered the United States, she decided to stock up on the sheet masks from Korean brands like U-Need and MediHeal she uses a few times a week. 'I did a recent haul to stockpile,' she said. 'I bought 50 in bulk, which should last me a few months.' South Korea is one of the countries that hopes to secure a trade deal before the Aug. 1 date President Donald Trump set for enforcing nation-specific tariffs. A not-insignificant slice of the U.S. population has skin in the game when it comes to Seoul avoiding a 25% duty on its exports. Asian skin care has been a booming global business for a more than a decade, with consumers in Europe, North and South America, and increasingly the Middle East, snapping up creams, serums and balms from South Korea, Japan and China. In the United States and elsewhere, Korean cosmetics, or K-beauty for short, have dominated the trend. A craze for all-in-one 'BB creams' — a combination of moisturizer, foundation and sunscreen — morphed into a fascination with 10-step rituals and ingredients like snail mucin, heartleaf and rice water. Vehicles and electronics may be South Korea's top exports to the U.S. by value, but the country shipped more skin care and cosmetics to the U.S. than any other last year, according to data from market research company Euromonitor. France, with storied beauty brands like L'Oreal and Chanel, was second, Euromonitor said. Statistics compiled by the U.S. International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency, show the U.S. imported $1.7 billion worth of South Korean cosmetics in 2024, a 54% increase from a year earlier. 'Korean beauty products not only add a lot of variety and choice for Americans, they really embraced them because they were offering something different for American consumers,' Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said. Along with media offerings such as 'Parasite' and 'Squid Games,' and the popularity of K-pop bands like BTS, K-beauty has helped boost South Korea's profile globally, she said. 'It's all part and parcel really of the same thing,' Lovely said. 'And it can't be completely stopped by a 25% tariff, but it's hard to see how it won't influence how much is sold in the U.S. And I think what we're hearing from producers is that it also really decreases the number of products they want to offer in this market.' Senti Senti, a retailer that sells international beauty products at two New York boutiques and through an e-commerce site, saw a bit of 'panic buying' by customers when Trump first imposed punitive tariffs on goods from specific countries, manager Winnie Zhong said. The rush slowed down after the president paused the new duties for 90 days and hasn't picked up again, Zhong said, even with Trump saying on July 7 that a 25% tax on imports from Japan and South Korea would go into effect on Aug. 1. Japan, the Philippines and Indonesia subsequently reached agreements with the Trump administration that lowered the tariff rates their exported goods faced — in Japan's case, from 25% to 15% — still higher than the current baseline of 10% tariff. But South Korea has yet to clinch an agreement, despite having a free trade agreement since 2012 that allowed cosmetics and most other consumer goods to enter the U.S. tax-free. Since the first store owned by Senti Senti opened 16 years ago, beauty products from Japan and South Korea became more of a focus and now account for 90% of the stock. The business hasn't had to pass on any tariff-related costs to customers yet, but that won't be possible if the products are subject to a 25% import tax, Zhong said. 'I'm not really sure where the direction of K-beauty will go to with the tariffs in place, because one of the things with K-beauty or Asian beauty is that it's supposed to be accessible pricing,' she said. Devoted fans of Asian cosmetics will often buy direct from Asia and wait weeks for their packages to arrive because the products typically cost less than they do in American stores. Rather than stocking up on their favorite sunscreens, lip tints and toners, some shoppers are taking a pause due to the tariff uncertainty. Los Angeles resident Jen Chae, a content creator with over 1.2 million YouTube subscribers, has explored Korean and Japanese beauty products and became personally intrigued by Chinese beauty brands over the last year. When the tariffs were first announced, Chae temporarily paused ordering from sites such as a shopping platform owned by an e-commerce company based in Hong Kong. She did not know if she would have to pay customs duties on the products she bought or the ones brands sent to her as a creator. 'I wasn't sure if those would automatically charge the entire package with a blanket tariff cost, or if it was just on certain items,' Chae said. On its website, YesStyle says it will give customers store credit to reimburse them for import charges. At Ohlolly, an online store focused on Korean products, owners Sue Greene and Herra Namhie are taking a similar pause. They purchase direct from South Korea and from licensed wholesalers in the U.S., and store their inventory in a warehouse in Ontario, California. After years of no duties, a 25% import tax would create a 'huge increase in costs to us,' Namhie said. She and Greene made two recent orders to replenish their stock when the tariffs were at 10%. But they have put further restocks on hold 'because I don't think we can handle 25%,' Namhie said. They'd have to raise prices, and then shoppers might go elsewhere. The business owners and sisters are holding out on hope the U.S. and Korea settle on a lower tariff or carve out exceptions for smaller ticket items like beauty products. But they only have two to four months of inventory in their warehouse. They say that in a month they'll have to make a decision on what products to order, what to discontinue and what prices will have to increase. Rachel Weingarten, a former makeup artist who writes a daily beauty newsletter called 'Hello Gorgeous!,' said while she's devoted to K-beauty products like lip masks and toner pads, she doesn't think stockpiling is a sound practice. 'Maybe one or two products, but natural oils, vulnerable packaging and expiration dates mean that your products could go rancid before you can get to them,' she said. Weingarten said she'll still buy Korean products if prices go up, but that the beauty world is bigger than one country. 'I'd still indulge in my favorites, but am always looking for great products in general,' she said. Bhasin, in Menlo Park, California, plans to keep buying her face masks too, even if the price goes up, because she likes the quality of Korean masks. 'If prices will go up, I will not shift to U.S. products,' she said. 'For face masks, I feel there are not a ton of solid and reliable substitutes in the U.S.'


The Hill
22 minutes ago
- The Hill
President Ocasio-Cortez isn't as far of a reach as it once was
In a move that surprised many on both sides of the political aisle, progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) recently voted — with an overwhelming majority of House Democrats and Republicans — to support funding for Israel's Iron Dome defense system. To be sure, Ocasio-Cortez's vote made little difference to the final tally. The amendment, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), which could have cut U.S. support, was shot down 422-6. Nevertheless, voting to support continued funding was extremely revealing for what it says about Ocasio-Cortez's grander ambitions. Indeed, not only did her vote mark a clear break with other members of the progressive 'Squad,' who made up five of the six objections. More importantly, it positioned Ocasio-Cortez closer to the Democratic mainstream at a time when her name has been brought up as a candidate for the Senate, and potentially even President. Further, this vote positions the congresswoman well vis-à-vis Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who trails Ocasio-Cortez by 19-points (55 percent to 36 percent) in a poll reported by Politico. This is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has broken from the progressive wing in order to strengthen her candidacy for higher office, although it is the most serious. In 2021, in the wake of another war between Israel and Gaza, Ocasio-Cortez publicly lobbied against Iron Dome funding only to reverse course and vote 'present.' At the time, MSNBC called her actions a bid to 'preserve the possibility of challenging Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.' Much like that vote, Ocasio-Cortez has maintained her image as a critic of Israel, but one who recognizes its right to exist and to self-defense, albeit her recent statements make it clear that she has an extremely narrow definition of 'self-defense.' This position, much closer to the wider Democratic Party and national electorate, is also in stark contrast with other progressive rising stars, such as Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani, the front-runner to be New York City's next Mayor has said Israel should not exist as a Jewish State, expressed support for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement, and who has taken a decisively one-sided view to Hamas's Oct. 7 attacks as well as the ensuring war. And yet, given the vastly different circumstances between the 2021 vote and present day, Ocasio-Cortez's July 18 vote carries considerably more weight. For months, even as many have doubted Ocasio-Cortez's viability for statewide or national office, she has travelled the country, drawing thousands to her rallies. Even in red states and districts, voters are coming out to see her. At one rally in Plattsburgh, N.Y., a district represented by Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik, Ocasio-Cortez reportedly drew a full 10 percent of the entire town. In that same vein, she has shown herself to be unmatched at fundraising ability. According to a Wall Street Journal analysis, Ocasio-Cortez has raised $15.4 million this year, nearly twice as much as House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and 23 times more than Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), the longest serving woman in the House. Moreover, virtually all (99 percent) of Ocasio-Cortez's contributions have come from individuals — her average donation in the second quarter was just $17 — rather than big-spending political action committees. Tellingly, almost three-quarters (72 percent) of her contributions have come from out of state, with a significant share also being spent on advertising in states other than New York. In fact, at this point — three years out from the 2028 elections — Ocasio-Cortez is seemingly more popular, marketable and noteworthy than former President Barack Obama was three years before the 2008 election. Obama, it will be remembered, was not even included in polls during the summer of 2005. His first appearance in a national poll came that December but was still considered such a longshot that his next appearance did not come until October of 2006. Conversely, the Race to the White House polling aggregator shows Ocasio-Cortez (12 percent) in fourth place, and she's consistently a top five finisher in individual polls. Polymarket even shows her having the second-best odds, 17 percent, behind only Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) at 21 percent. Additionally, in Democratic primaries, the left-wing of the party tends to dominate, giving her a considerable boost, particularly given the enthusiasm she tends to generate among this group. Taken together, it increasingly appears that Ocasio-Cortez's growing national appeal supports her growing political ambitions. However, as I've stated elsewhere, there are legitimate reasons to doubt whether her viability for higher office corresponds with her aspirations. Aside from her age, she will turn 39 three weeks before the 2028 election, and inexperience, Ocasio-Cortez's political leanings could alienate a sufficient number of swing voters. The 2024 election indicated that Americans, including a significant number of Democrats, do not want a far-left Democratic Party, and Ocasio-Cortez has historically been squarely on that side. Likewise, even if she is taking steps to quietly move to the center on some issues, she may be underestimating the potential damage it may do among her own base of support. Just days after the vote on the amendment, a far-left group defaced Ocasio-Cortez's Bronx office, painting 'Ocasio-Cortez funds genocide' in red paint. Her campaign advisor has also said that they've received death threats due to her vote. Without downplaying the seriousness and inexcusability of political violence, it is doubtful that the far-left would stay away if Ocasio-Cortez began to be considered a legitimate frontrunner in the next three years. Furthermore, were she to become the party's nominee for either the Senate or the presidency, there is likely a 'built in' vote among Democratic voters who would support the party, regardless of the candidate. That's especially true given that she addresses critical needs for Democrats — their lack of fresh ideas, new faces and overall lack of energy. Of course, this is certainly not to suggest that she will be the nominee. She may very well decide that making a run at the Senate first makes more sense. Her appeal may also begin to fade between now and 2028. Ultimately, the prospect of Ocasio-Cortez becoming Democrats' 2028 presidential nominee is not out of the realm of reason, and even looks considerably more plausible than it did just one year ago. Douglas E. Schoen is a political consultant who served as an adviser to President Clinton and to the 2020 presidential campaign of Michael Bloomberg. He is the author of 'The End of Democracy? Russia and China on the Rise and America in Retreat.'


Newsweek
24 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Social Security Warning Issued as Retirees Could Face $18,000 Cut
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Retirees could face a huge cut to benefits in the next seven years if a new funding solution isn't found for Social Security, a new report from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) has outlined. The committee has estimated that a couple with medium dual income retiring in 2033 would lose $18,100 per year in benefits if the trust fund conundrum is not solved. For a single income couple, this would be $13,600. Why It Matters Social Security is relied on by tens of millions of Americans who collect monthly benefits, which help form the bedrock of income in retirement. The program is funded by a combination of payroll taxes and government reserve funds. But according to the latest Social Security Trustees report, the program's two trust funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) funds—when combined are projected to reach insolvency by 2034. At that point, benefits would rely entirely on incoming payroll taxes, resulting in an automatic cut of approximately 21 percent, unless Congress intervenes. What To Know The size of future Social Security benefit cuts would vary significantly depending on a couple's age, marital status, and employment history. Dual-earner couples with low incomes would face a slightly smaller cut of around $11,000 per year, while high-income couples might experience reductions approaching $24,000 annually. While the dollar amount is lower for low-income couples, the impact would be more severe relative to their total income and lifetime earnings. These projected reductions are higher than those outlined in the latest Social Security Trustees' report, which projected a 21 percent cut in benefits if no solution is found. The CRFB calculations are based on a 24 percent cut, due to the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which include tax rate cuts and an expanded senior standard deduction. The OBBBA ensures that almost 90 percent of Social Security recipients will no longer be required to pay income taxes on their benefits, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA). "The tax rate cuts and increase in the senior standard deduction from the recently enacted OBBBA would reduce Social Security's revenue from the income taxation of benefits, increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency," CRFB said in its report. "If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger." Social Security has weathered similar financial challenges before. In the early 1980s, the program neared insolvency, making Congress implement a series of reforms. These included increases in payroll taxes, gradually raising the full retirement age, and introducing taxes on a portion of Social Security benefits. Stock image/file photo: A Social Security card with U.S. Dollars. Stock image/file photo: A Social Security card with U.S. Dollars. GETTY What People Are Saying The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said in its report: "Policymakers pledging not to touch Social Security are implicitly endorsing these deep benefit cuts for 62 million retirees in 2032 and beyond. It is time for policymakers to tell the truth about the program's finances and to pursue trust fund solutions to head off insolvency and improve the program for current and future generations." Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano said in a news release earlier this month about the OBBBA: "This is a historic step forward for America's seniors. For nearly 90 years, Social Security has been a cornerstone of economic security for older Americans. By significantly reducing the tax burden on benefits, this legislation reaffirms President Trump's promise to protect Social Security and helps ensure that seniors can better enjoy the retirement they've earned." What Happens Next? Lawmakers are offering proposals to shore up the system. Among them is the reintroduced Medicare & Social Security Fair Share Act from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, both Democrats. Their bill would impose payroll taxes on wages and investment income exceeding $400,000. A bipartisan effort comes from Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, who have proposed establishing a $1.5 trillion investment fund for Social Security. The Treasury would front the funding, which would be invested across a broad portfolio of stocks, bonds, and other assets to generate higher long-term returns. After 75 years, the Treasury would be repaid, and the accumulated gains would be directed toward supporting Social Security benefits.